Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16[edit]

Hotel buildings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hotel is ambiguous (function, structure, business, company, etc), so it would be better to match the parent category where most of these articles came from Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, or more specifically the by year subcategories. If successful, the subcategories would need to be renamed later. This proposal would better match the usage in the majority of the other subcategories in Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unnecessary precision, the main article is hotel and the main cat is Hotels. The primary meaning of "hotel" is building as far as I know. Brandmeistertalk 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; only hotel buildings can be completed, in reference to construction. The objection to the previous proposal, which I share, was that it is improper to conflate an institution with the building it occupies. By the reasoning of some editors, it seems, the Houses of Parliament would have been established in 1870, when the Houses of Parliament were completed.- choster (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:Hotels opened in the 19th century, etc. In UK, there are "country house hotels", which are gentlemen's mansions that have been converted to hotels. The building may have been completed in (say) 1830, but only opened as a hotel in (say) 1985. To which category does it belong? Putting it either in the 19th or 20th cnetyury category will be highly misleading as to the date when a hotel was built. The same will apply to many hotels taht were not purpose built. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buildings are built or constructed. Once that defining activity is complete, the completed building can be opened for use. Opening or establishment generally occurs after the building is completed. While some building are purpose built and belong in multiple trees, they can not be forced there by default. As an example, I ran into a hotel that was listed as being established in the 2000's. The building was built in, as I recall 1885 for industrial use, Chamberlain West Hollywood Hotel is another example. So attempting to force an article like that into something that is intended to equate to equate the building as being completed at later time is a flawed convention. There are also a number of commercial buildings where multiple uses are accommodated like Bay Street Emeryville. This can be offices and retail and several floors of hotel. So in a case like that, we would have a commercial building being completed and a hotel established. So trying to categorize based on the assumption that the entire structure is a hotel is wrong. Also note that there are cases, even where purpose built, where the building is completed and it is opened years later, Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria Philippines is an example based on the article content. So clearly the building and its use must be treated separately. Bottom line is that buildings are completed and hotels are opened. The tree here is for building completion and the opening tree is established in. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to answer your specific question. The answer is obvious, Category:Houses completed in 1830. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename Hotel is usually used to refer to a specific location, whether a single building or a complex of buildings. There is no reason to include "building" in the cat title. The uses of the term "church" are different enough that I would make a different statement on the issue, but each term has to be considered in its actual usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are aware that there are multiple cases where several hotel companies operate in a single building? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. This would make these categories consistent with several subcats of Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, for example. It would remove ambiguity when it is clear from parent building and structures categories that buildings are what are what is being documented here. Hotel buildings are 'completed'; hotel businesses are 'established' or 'opened'. Hmains (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really wish we had separate category structures for buildings (objects) and for the businesses. In the case of churches, I'm doubtful that this is possible. But I think it's possible for hotels. But this is going to take editorial work, and likely not something which can be done automatically. - jc37 01:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sofia, Bulgaria[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. These categories all relate to the city of Sofia in Bulgaria. However, it is surrounded by Sofia Province, which is categorised under Category:Sofia Province. A disambiguator is needed to avoid confusion and miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Bulgaria has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Underworld (band)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Timbiriche[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turbonegro[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Nuclear power by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: reverse merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging
Nominator's rationale: The parent category includes only five (Sweden added) countries, only three of which (Belgium, Sweden and the Czech Republic) have nuclear power stations. The subcategory for Belgium has three articles, two of which are about nuclear power stations so are already in the subcategory Category:Nuclear power stations in Belgium. Countries like China, France or the United States with a significant number of nuclear power stations do not have a similar category, and as most articles by country about nuclear energy relate to nuclear power production the “nuclear power” category by country just duplicates the “nuclear energy” category by country. Hugo999 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not the first time when issues regarding nuclear power versus nuclear energy are discussed. The last and extensive discussion just one year ago is here. That discussion is still highly relevant and lot of pro and contra arguments are presented. That time there was understanding that some standardization of these categories are needed; however, no consensus was reached. There was also understanding that the discussion involves also broader discussion power versus energy. If the proposal will gain a support, also parrent categories Category:Nuclear power and Category:Nuclear energy should be merged. Also if merged, the same principle should be applied for other power and energy categories, e.g. merging category:Solar power and category:Solar energy (and their ...by country... categories). Also, it should be mentioned that in the case of wind power and wind energy the categories were merged other way around (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_3#Category:Wind_energy). Beagel (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll wait to !vote for a while. But I agree with your basic points. These categories are more about the power industry and not the energy potential. It that is the case, then the current names are correct and the question that needs asking is, should this be a reverse merge? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject to a reverse merge that adds any real content, Delete Category:Nuclear power in Belgium and Category:Nuclear power in Albania, Upmerge Category:Nuclear power in the United Arab Emirates to both parents and Delete Category:Nuclear power in the Czech Republic after upmerging the single article to Category:Nuclear power by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Every rock in the ground is full of nuclear energy. The categories are about controlled nuclear power: getting that energy to flow in useful ways, particularly converting it to electrical power. There's no point in merging the category to the wrong target.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge and add many additional changes. Category:Nuclear power and its subcats should only include information about the generation of electricity and the like from nuclear power plants. Category:Nuclear energy should contain most of what is currently contains but add Category:Nuclear power (with all its power plants as a subcategory. This would clarify the entire subject of 'nuclear' for our readers. We then have the science 'nuclear energy' with its implementing technology 'nuclear power'. Hmains (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- these categories are (I presume) about the generation of electric power. Nuclear energy (save as a parent to this) should be about other applications than electricity generation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge of the content but keep both for the categories tree structure. As it was said by some other editors, these categories' entries are about generation of electric power and therefore should be categorized in the Nuclear power in foo categories. At the same tie, Nuclea power in foo should be narrowly defined and include only entirs about articles about nuclear power generation in foo (e.g. Nuclear power stations in foo categories etc). At the same time, Nuclear power in foo should be a child category for Nuclear energy in foo category, which in addition to nuclear power should include also other nuclear energy related articles (e.g. nuclear fuel production, uranium mining, etc) per Peterkingiron. Of course, most of these categories have at the moment a rather limited number of entries but it is still potentially useful for developing a proper categories tree. Beagel (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not keen on having a third category for most countries, ie categories in both Category:Nuclear power by country and Category:Nuclear energy by country as well as Category:Nuclear technology by country. Most countries have few articles on nuclear power and nuclear energy and the subjects overlap; eg the article Nuclear energy in Belgium is similar to say the article Nuclear power in Romania, while the Romanian article includes radioactive waste disposal which relates to the nuclear energy category. Hence I would prefer one country category for nuclear power and nuclear energy, and nuclear energy is the more inclusive category. Nuclear power stations and nuclear power companies have their own “by country” categories. Hugo999 (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If only two categories to be kept, these categories should be Category:Nuclear power by country and Category:Nuclear technology by country. However, for the more systematic categories' tree I would prefer to keep all free categories and the stuercture of these categories should be Category:Nuclear power by country → Category:Nuclear energy by country → Category:Nuclear technology by country. Beagel (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Rebel albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per The Rebel and Ben Wallers —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ring roads[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all as nominated. There was some support for making the US an exception, but no clear consensus to do so. So I close this as rename all to "ring roads" without prejudice to an immediate further discussion on the US (and any countries for which an exception might be made). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:RMIT University[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official name of the university is the "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology" (according to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act 2010 No. 3 of the Parliament of Victoria), and of which the common name used is "RMIT". The names RMIT University and RMIT International University, Vietnam are registered trading names of the two regional branches of the university (as outlined in RMIT's policies and procedures for trading names and corporation company formation policy). "RMIT University" (as the category is currently named) only relates to one branch of the university. As the category in question is used for pages relating to both branches of RMIT, as well as the university as a whole, it should therefore be reflected in the use of the common name "RMIT". NouvelleAuteur (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. “Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology” the name given to the University under its establishing legislation. This is the name which should be used in contractual and other formal documentation involving the University.
  2. “RMIT University” the registered Business Name of the University. This name is also registered as a Trade Mark which incorporates the University’s distinctive pixel.
Per this and the noms point about the Vietnam branch, I think #1 is the better choice. --Qetuth (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge, with "former" kept as a subcat. - jc37 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

Delete Newly created category merely duplicated content in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. As you can see from: Category: Roman Catholic dioceses in France, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Spain, Category: Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy, just to select a few at random, none of the other categories have 'current' in front of them. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No-one is objecting to the 'Former' categories. The 'former' ones should stay where they are and the current ones should be moved back to the top level, namely Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. This is the usual way of organising categories. Oculi (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Brandmeister says that the category is not standard. This is not true. Look at the analogous Category:Current monarchies which has a "Former" sibling and a "Monarchies" parent. If its good enough for monarchies, why isn't it good enough for dioceses? Ditto Category:Current foreign ministers and Category:Current Brigades of the British Army and Category:Current ministerial offices in Victoria (Australia). Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When brought to the attention of CfD, "Current" categories have almost always been done away with. The three categories you mention are not part of any wider system of "Current" categories, and being anomalous, will be dealt with in due time. IOW, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here.- choster (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note if Johnpacklambert's suggestion is actioned, then neither this cat nor the Former cat would exist. This would leave all dioceses - both current and former - in just 1 cat together. Please explain to me how this would be an improvement on the status quo. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think nobody supports Johnpacklambert's suggestion. Several have spoken against it. Esoglou (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as proposed, with “Former” as a subcategory (and am dubious about other recent “current” categories for present officeholders eg Category:Current foreign ministers. If someone wants to write a LIST of current foreign ministers, OK. As with buildings and structures where we have say Category:Power stations (ie current) with subcategories for former and maybe proposed power stations. “Former” is generally a subcategory of the main category, which does not have “Current” in the title. Hugo999 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_16&oldid=1138397254"